Assessment Revision

1. Media control Poland invades Germany discuss referencing Carey and Arendt:

• The media would never report any losses of battles but often tell the complete opposite to boost morale, or make a fake report an attack by an enemy to justify to the masses why they are going to war. Furthermore this kept the masses in check and ensured that even their own thoughts were controlled by the state; independent thinking was not allowed.
• Germans restricted the media, as it was state run.
• Media gave an Hegelian perspective, basically stating that Germany had to destroy everyone to get closer, or achieve divinity/heavenly state.
• Absense of Plurality (no tolerance of ethnic minorities/different cultures).
• People became a resource of the state, and no one cares about them, and their rights become void.
• Intellectuals fear, and want to exterminate the masses (e.g. Hitler).
• The masses were thought to not be able to vote responsibly - problem with democracy.
• Carey - The masses are the mob when they achieve basic literacy (they have power). Because of their numbers, they make themselves a political heavyweight.
• The masses bring about fascism by being manipulated by people like Goering.
• The masses are aware who they are voting into power, but still allow themselves to be manipulated as they are incompetent and need to be directed.
• Nietzsche wants to keep the masses controlled and in a docile state, so they have no power or political influence which is intellectually above their head.
• Totalitarianism is a rule where the state control through terror. There is no independant source of information, your individual thoughts and claims will be dismissed, and their is no legal trials which leads to no justice.

2. How does modern state differ from classical or medieval state according to Arendt. Refer Hobbes, Rosseau, JS Mill, Hegel and Marx:

• Modern state has much more control over the masses, because of tools such as the media which is a huge weapon in controlling what people think. Medieval states controlled society’s though their monarchy such as in with the England the ‘ divine right of kings’, which meant society believed God had given them to right to win.
• Hobbes - Without state ruling everything would be total anarchy. We must submit ourselves to the government for protection. State of nature would rule without harsh state intervention.
• Rousseau – is a more liberal thinker, and believes there should be a social contract between public and state, and they should have a limited ammount power. The state should be the only people that can use force, but only a slight ammount. State should listen to the general will of the people, and anyone who did not want to be free will be forced to be free.
• JS Mill -believes people should be able to do what they want, as long as no one else is harmed by these actions. Strong believe in Free speech and didn’t believe in censorship.
• Hegel- Believes that Germany or Prussian state's attenpts at eliminating everbody else will bring Germans closer to God and is the natural way of the world.
• Marx – An atheists who doesn’t believe that a God exists. He thinks state is a tool of oppression to keep lower classes down. A Liberalal thinker due to the fact that he thinks state should not have total power. Mass culture attempts to eliminate diversity.

3. Analyse Nietchsze and modern literacy movements in journalism, popular culture and the masses:

• Writes in short, to the point almost headline like statements.
• Goes for shock element.
• Amorality - morality without it coming from a single source (e.g. religion)
• Speaks in metaphors (e.g. overman)
• All you have is your body - Freud
• Influenced modern journalism massively, with headlines, sticking to facts, going for shocking statements or stories.
• Believes everyone will have their own individual take on his work.

4. Explain the fascination for intellectuals and some journalists of the film citizen Kane.· William R Hearst is Careys theory in action, a semi-literate member of the masses gaining power through literacy:

• William Randolph Hearst is basically Careys theory in action. A semi-literate member of the masses gaining power through literacy.
• Hearsts yellow journalism was the first kind of modern journalism which is no commonplace, with it's short bursts, headlines and often exaggerated stories about crime to make people want to read.
• Kane wanted power and nothing is ever enough to satisfy him.
• Freud's reasoning behind his actions and theories is due to him to never being accepted by his mother, as he was put up for adoption at a young age. This links to the film Kane as unable to obtain rosebud so tries to obtain every material possession to make up for it.
• Freud - Inner conflict. Your suppress inner-self and create outer-self that you present to the world.
• Freuds believes that our personality is shaped by our parents interaction, and rejection can lead to what happens to Kane, although it was a chance for him to have a better life. Kane appetite to always have more could be interpreted as Freuds need for approval from parents.

5. Asses Freud on the media from Page 3 to BBC and from to cosmopolitan Jerry Springer:

• Freud's idea that we are all obsessed by sex is represented in modern advertising.
• Collumns such as ‘dear Deirdre’ are heavily influenced by Freud, and focuses on our voyeur inclinations.
• 'Page three' was brought about due to the theory that men weren’t breast fed as children in the 40’s and 50’s, thus they would be fascinated by breasts.
• Shows like Jerry Springer emphasise Freud's views on ego, and super ego.

Assessment Revision

Friedrich Nietzsche - Thus Spoke Zarathustra (SEMINA PAPER)

• Translated - "A book for all and none"
• Book was composed in 4 parts, during 1883-1885
• Nietzsche choose to mimic the style of the bible in order to fundamentally oppose the morality, and views of Christianity and Judaism.
• The book follows the fictional story of Zarathustra.
• The character 'Zarathustra' is taken from the ancient prophet known in English as 'Zoroaster.'
• Nietzsche portrays a different Zarathustra, one who turns what was traditional morality on its head.
• The book also featured the infamous quote "God is dead", which had only been seen previously in 'The Gay Science.'
• Another feature in 'Zarathustra' is the claim that Humans are a part of a transitional phase between apes and the 'overman.'

Quote from 'Zarathustra':

'Man is something that shall be overcome. All beings so far have created something beyond themselves, do you want to be the ebb to that flood and go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock, a painful embarrasment. Man shall be just that to the overman.'

• Nietzsche himself see's 'Zarathustra' as his masterpiece, and claims it is the "greatest present that has ever been given to man", and that the "book bridges centuries."
• The 'eternal recurrence' found in other work by Nietzsche is also mentioned in 'Zarathustra.' The thought is that all events have happened before, and will happen again and again on a cotinuous loops. He believes the reality of this will be the one true test of the overman. An overman would be elated to know that he would only be repeating what has happened, and would live free of regrets and with a love for life.
• Another running theme of Nietzsche is the 'will to power', which is also found in 'Zarathustra.' This theory is an analysis of humans self-overcoming , self-enhancement rich lives. The will to power is the summary of mans struggle against the enviroment.
• Criticism of Christianity is also frequently found and in particular when looking at their values of what is 'good' and 'evil', as well as their beliefs in the afterlife. Nietzsche sees these complacent beliefs as the one thing holding man back from becoming the overman.

Quotes from Nietzsche:

1. 'Morality is the herd instinct of the individual.'
2. 'In Christianity, neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point'
3. 'The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently'

My thoughts:

• As an atheist myself, I can find great parallels between Nietzsche's views and my own. I find his work though provocking, and accurate. I see my own views as almost a creation of what Nietzsche started with his work.
• I admire Nietzsche for standing up for what he believes in and against the strongly held traditional morals of his time. Blasphemy in his time was dealt with a far greater consequence than today.
• I find the quotes 'God is dead' an intriguing one. The general view of atheists is that God is more a creation of man, thus never trully existed. Nietzsche almost plays devils advocate by suggesting that God may have existed, but what if he is now dead?
• Nietzsche's views on the overman are also very interesting, and are supported by tremendous logic. If we did evolve from aped, then who's to say we won't evolve again? Theres nothing to suggest that Humans are the end of the road, so to speak.
• Nietzsche's views on the 'eternal occurence' isn't one of his views I personally connect with as much as others, but it none the less raises some good points. It makes logical sense that for all the billions and billions of people that have existed, and all the events that have happened in this planets long history, that events do get repeated. The view that this is the true test of the overman to me suggests that the overman isn't some vast physical evolution of humans, more an intellectual one. I believe Nietzsche see's himself as an overman.

Tabloid Nation

The book looks deeply into the Daily Mirror, as well as the Daily Mail.

• Alfred Northcliffe hired Fyfe as the editor of the Daily Mirror. He wanted Fyfe to turn the paper around and improve its circulation which was at the time, poor.
• Although at the time the Daily Mirror was considered as a female's paper, Fyfe nonetheless fired every single female journalist employed by the apart apart from Mary Howarth who stayed on as a fashion writer.
• The most influential change to the paper came when Hannen Swaffer was appointed and managed to turn the papers circulation from 25,000, to just under a million in just a few years by making it a picture paper and starting the trend of the celebrity obsessed culture which we have come to strongly link to photo journalism.
• This change all started with the death of King Edward III. Swaffer and Kennedy Jones (whom Northcliffe pinched from Hearst's organisation) overheard a conversation of a rival paper talking about pictures of King Edward III on his death bed. Swaffer managed to get hold of these pictures and put them on the front page, and led to the paper selling around 71,000 copies over just two days, and established their reputation as a tabloid newspaper.

Modernism - The Age of Analysis

Modernism evolved from Romaniticism, and was a reaction against the Enlightenment.

Freidrich Nietzsche:

• Nietzsche's style has a great influence in Journalism, even today. He started advertisement slogans, hook lines, as well as tabloid headlines.
• Nietzsche is considered as a flawed genius, and in the closing stages of his life he was simply insane, taking a vow of silence in the last 10 years.
• Nietzsche saw Christianity as the religion of the weak, and as mankinds greatest problem.

William Randolph Hearst

• In 1846 New York Newspapers set up 'the association press.' They were required to be objective, as they supplied content for a variety of papers which covered all sides of the political spectrum.


• In 1887, William Randolph Hearst took over the 'San Francisco Examiner' and revolutionized it.


• Hearst was a big exponent of the front page of Newspapers, previously front pages were filled with text and very little illustration, however Hearst, who had a background in art, reduced the length of stories, expanded the size of headlines, and eliminated advertisement.


• Hearst included many illustrations, stating that they 'attract the eye and stimulate the imagination of the lower classes, and materially aid comprehension.'


• New York at the time was a city dramatically on the rise, because of a number of factors including; cheap labour, urban concentration, very low commodity prices, capital accumulation, and vast investment in infastructure.
• In 1896, Hearst brought the New York morning journal and poached the 'Yellow Kid' from under Joseph Pulitzer's nose. Pulitzer however, tried to stay in the game and hired his own cartoonist to produce the 'Yellow Kid' for his own newspaper. So for a while, there were two major New York newspapers running the same cartoon. Due to a lack of copyright laws at this time, there was never a legal battle about the ownership of the 'Yellow Kid.'
• The 'Yellow Kid' was vastly popular among the working class due to the language used and attitude towards the upper classes.
• The 'New York Morning Journal' and the 'New York World' were constantly at loggerheads, and even went head to head in solving crimes.
• The American - Spanish war led to great oppurtunities for stories for the newspapers, and in particular Hearst who sent reporters over to cover the story.
• In short, Hearst directly influenced modern journalism by creating the models for modern and popular tabloid journalism. The style of 'yellow papers' was later copied in the UK by Northcliffe, Rothermere (Daily Mail and Daily Mirror), as well as Rupert Murdoch (The Sun).

Bertrand Russell reading (REVISED)

Starts be saying that the influence of Religion in modern society is religion. See's this chapter in history as 'Dogma vs Science.' Dogma being a specific doctraine of thought that is authorititively laid down, refering to the effect of religious beliefs.

It is stated that the renaissance ended in 1513, and what was leftg behind was a time when very few rules were legitimate. Brutus thought that religion should become a form of 'social cement', a means of bringing society back together during troubled times. It was seen at this time that people only believed in God when it suited them, and not everyone was as religious as first thought. It was thought that God is perfect and pure, it is the human race that is corrupt.

Descartes:

• Focused on 'form' and 'reason'
• Believed in natural slavery. Deemed it unfair to free a slave who is deemed to stay in captivity.
• Doubted everything, other than the fact he exsists. 'I think, therefore I am.'
• Seen as one of the founding fathers of modern philosophy as he disproved many of the theories of Aristotle.
• Wanted to base things on 'a rock beyond doubt.'

Hobbes:

• An empiricist, thus believed knowledge is gained through experience.
• First empiricist of his time who was open to mathematics.
• Believed man should live like Bee's, in the way bee's live in a social structure, where everyone has a duty and doesn't question it.
• Spoke about a 'state of nature,' in other words what the world was like before the formation of government.
• Believed that without a King, the world would be a vile place and people would eventually elect a leader.
• Believed that once a King penned an agreement to be a ruler, he was then free to do as he pleases. However, Hobbes still saw this as better than the 'state of nature' where there was a continuous war.
• Believed in a 'state of nature' that everyone would act out of self-interest.

John Locke:

• Valued experience over innate idea's.
• Disagreed with the 'divine right of Kings,' which suggested that Kings are descendants of Adam and had a direct contract with God.
• Believed that in a 'state of nature' people would still have the capacity to distinguish right from wrong
• Felt that if King's broke the 'natural law', that the people have the right to a revolution.
• Thought that experience in combination with reason is what produces idea's.

Galileo:

• Built a telescope, and made the following observations:

1. Saw a moon with mountains, and craters. Went against all school of thought before where it was deemed that the moon was perfectly smooth.
2. Saw that the Earth is infact not the centre of the Universe.

The Renaissance

The renaissance started in the 15th century, in Italy which was at the time a country in a state of continuous conflict. Books by Plato, and Aristotle were introduced to literature, which led to new, groundbreaking ideas.

Alot of what the 'renaissance men' actually said was in great contradiction to the bible, but because what they said was so groundbreaking, the pope labelled them as catholics.

These 'renaissance men' as I referred to earlier, are as follows:

• Pythagorus - known for his mathmatical theory.
• Plato - believed in the 'devine.' A place beyond this world, a perfect world.
• Artistotle - student of Plato, and tutor of Alexander the great. Believed in observation to understand.
• Epicurus - believed in pleasure.
• Diogenes - against convention and believed people should love as simple as possible, with as little responsibilities as possible.
• Heraclitus - believed that in order to change, you must first have a violent act.

Plato believed that a belieft in God, and good and bad is a contradictory belief. He felt that if our lives are based on God's will, then evil and good are seperate for him and we should be allowed to judge whether God is good for bad.

HCJ Notes

Libery = freedom

John Wilkes

• Advocate of civil liberty.
• Mayor of London and MP.
• Forced into excile numorous times.
• Critic of the powerful - loved by the lower class.
• Attacked the government in paper 'the North Briton.'
• King + government tried everything to get rid of Wilkes, including paying him off, lawsuits, and assasinations.
• Called the king a liar, and was arrested.
• Re-elected to parliament from prison, but the house voted him incapable.
• Eleced mayor of London soon after.

Mary Wollstonecraft

• Difficult upbringing - drunken and violent father.
• Became obsessed with education - first publication: 'Thoughts on the education of daughters'
• Argued education of women was superficial. Did not equip women with independence of thought and judegment.
• Similiar belief to Locke - born with blank slate which is moulded by education. Education correctly creates rational, responsible citizens.
• Set up a school in Stoke Newington.
• Fascinated by Rousseau.
• Went against Edmund Burke who stated 'society is built on tradition, to rip it all up and start again is a recipe for disaster.'
• Responded to this by writing 'Vindication of the rights of men.' In this she claimed that education reinforces gender roles and that women should take control of their own destiny.
• Believed women + men should just all be seen as humans.
• Very unpopular until end of the 19th century.

Liberty

• Began as an attempt to limit powers of government and give authority to individuals.
• Prize freedom over equality.
• Believe there should be a seperation from church and state (promote secularisation).

J. S. Mills

• Thrown in jail at 17 for distributing literature on contraception.
• Introduced first bill to allow women the right to a vote.
• By 16 was probably the most educated person in Europe.
• Believed freedom of speech is absolute, and that an opinion should never be silenced no matter how much you disagree.
• Felt the majority can be wrong.
• Quoted as saying "one persons taste is his own particular concern."
• And "genius can only breathe freely in atmosphere of freedom."
• Society should not interfere with peoples "choices of pleasure" as long as no one else is harmed.
• Thought all children should be educated, and nobody has the right to keep another from an education.

Utilitarianism

• Bentham believed you should try and produce happinnes.
• Mills believed if women were inferior, then why should the need to make laws to keep women in subjection? If women are incapable, why forbid them?
• Three ways to overlook consequence:

1. Act
2. Moral Rules
3. Disposition

The Return Of The King

Sol Campbell in his prime was without doubt a world class performer. He was a rock, a model of consistency by which all should measure up to. He had the perfect combination of height, power, pace, and reading of the game which all centre-backs desire. Unlike some other top quality players, such as Rio Ferdinand, John Terry, I never recall Campbell making any high profile gaffs which cost his team dearly (well at least not on the field).

Equally as vital as anyone in the invincible’s line up that dominated English football like no other. As great as the likes of Vieira, Henry were in that team it could easily be justified that Sol Campbell actually had the hardest job of the lot. Yes Vieira bossed the middle of the park like I have seen no other; yes Henry at times single handily destroyed teams and won games. But the quality of support these players had was very different to that of Sol Campbell. Henry always had the likes of Pires, and most notably Bergkamp feeding him with the chances to win games in the style in which he did. Vieira always had the likes of Gilberto holding behind him, and the ever industrious Ljungberg working the right flank. Campbell’s role was difference. That back like consisted of Ashley Cole, Kolo Toure, Sol Campbell, and Lauren. Ashley Cole without doubt a top draw left back (cringe), but at the time a young one and one who’s attacking instincts at times left the defence exposed. Kolo Toure, who’s deficiencies have become all too clear since Campbell left the club, and Lauren although a solid performer, is generally considered just about an above average full back. The question I would phase would be, without Henry, without Vieira, and without difference personal would we have won the league? Probably not. Without Sol Campbell, would we have? Definitely not.

The problem many of these true sporting greats have is when to bail out, when to retire and the best way, and often the hardest way to do so is to go out at the top. Go out as a champion. The likes of Tony Adams, Martin Keown, Patrick Vieira are all players who strike out as going out as champions. If they stayed on possibly a season longer, the decline in their performance would have been clear to see and criticism would have been widespread. Other sportsmen simply go on to long, whether out of love for the game, or love of the money that comes with it. An Example being Roy Keane who’s presence in midfield declined to the point he was often being asked to play at centre back late on in his career which in the past would have been unthinkable. We are currently seeing this from Gary Neville, Paul Scholes who I personally believe should have retired last summer. Why carry on when you have nothing to prove is the question often asked of sportsmen that do carry on that little bit to long. This is often a bad decision for legends, whose image is slightly degraded by performances that show signs of decline and fail to show the ability and consistency that we all have become accustomed too.

Sol Campbell is different, he was a great. However this great still has a point to prove, he did not go out at the top. He went out having lost a Champions League final, having previously gone AWOL on a very young struggling Arsenal team against West Ham at Highbury in a game Arsenal lost 3-2 (the last loss at Highbury). This is not the act of an experienced head, a key component for club and country. However this was the act of a man clearly fighting some personal demons. Yes he went on to win an FA for Portsmouth (more than he ever won at Tottenham I would like to add smugly), but a man with Sol Campbells ability and stature in the game was never set to go out of the game having played for an average Premiership club, and definitely not playing for a team as far down as League 2. This decision to join Notts County was one of the most bizarre in history, a player whom I am sure many a Premiership club would have desired, joining a team in the same division as Barnet. This decision puzzles me still, the answer at the time given simply as a financial one. If this was the case however, why would he the walk out on this lucrative deal if it wasn’t for footballing reasons and his own personal aspirations.

This is a man who has a serious point to prove. If he retired now, or went out playing for Notts County in the lower divisions of English football there would always be questions of his temperament, having gone AWOL on Arsenal, questions of his loyalty having left Tottenham on a free to join bitter North London rivalries and walking out on Notts County after one appearance after signing a 5 year contract.

His ability would never, and has never been in question, but these nagging doubts have always and will always be unless this second stint at Arsenal is a fruitful one. Arsenal, a team lacking depth at the back, lacking a leader, an old head have signed a legend with a point to prove. This isn’t a decision made by a desperate Wenger, he simply doesn’t make these decisions. He would have watched Campbell’s performances very closely over the 3 months at training with Arsenal, picking through every aspect of Sol Campbell as a footballer, and as a man with a toothpick. Wenger does not make rash decisions, he is a highly thoughtful man (sometimes to thoughtful for his own good) and I am sure see’s no reason why Campbell cannot contribute to this Arsenal team just like the likes of Steve Bould, Tony Adams, Martin Keown, Lee Dixon, and Winterburn did in the twilight of their careers. It wouldn’t even surprise me in the slightest if Campbell got another one year contract at the end of the season.It all points to a great move by Arsene, who's team and in some ways himself has the same point to prove as that of Sol Campbell. Let’s all hope his influence is a positive one and can help Arsenal on the way to a trophy winning season in the first in the second decade of the 21st century.

“Heeey, hey Tottenham, Oooh Ahhh. I wanna kno-oooow, where your captains gone”

The Flawed Offside Rule

'In preparation for the World Cup, the "offside rule" explained for women:
You're in a shoe shop, second in the queue for the till. Behind the shop assistant on the till is a pair of shoes which you have seen and which you must have.
The female shopper in front of you has seen them also and is eyeing them with desire. Both of you have forgotten your purses.
It would be rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to pay for the shoes.
The shop assistant remains at the till waiting.
Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and sees your dilemma.
She prepares to throw her purse to you.
If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper and buy the shoes!
At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and "whilst it is in flight" you could nip around the other shopper, catch the purse and buy the shoes!
BUT, you must always remember that until the purse has "actually been thrown", it would be plain wrong for you to be in front of the other shopper and you would be OFFSIDE!'


It has long been held a joke that women do not understand the offside rule. But now I would ask, who actually does?

With all the changes in recent years, such as an attacker who is level with the defender now being onside, then daylight having to be between the attacker and defender, then a part of the body that can legally play the ball of the attacker being ahead of the defender, and now players having to be deemed to be 'interfering with play.'

Who actually knows the rule today? The problem is, it is all down to individual interpretation, and this was portrayed perfectly with Man United's goal against Birmingham in the 1-1 on the 09/01/10. Manchester United's full-back Patrice Evra crossed the ball in and the Birmingham centre-half Scott Dann slid in to block the cross and deflected the ball into his own not. Wayne Rooney was offside (although admittidley marginal), the linesman had his flag up and after some consultation with the referee, decided to allow the goal as it was an own goal. The commentators agreed this was a correct decision, and Alex Ferguson even mocked the referee after the game for the linesman having his flag up when it was an own-goal.

However in my opinion, this goal should have been scratched off and deemed off-side. But how? You may well ask, it was an own goal? Well in my opinion although Rooney did not touch the ball and interfere with play directly, his positioning nonetheless had an impact on the defenders decision to slide in the stop the cross. Would he have done that knowing that there was no Manchester United players behind him? No he wouldn't have, so by that reckoning Rooney was interfering with play thus was offside. (Make your own mind up http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/4419263/)

You may well believe that my take on the goal is wrong, but my point is that there is no rule in football to prove me wrong and make the linesmans job a hell of a lot easier. One mans offside, is another man's onside. I think its about time we got back to basics, and cut the referees and linesman who have the hardest job in football, some slack!

That includes you Fergie...